best software firewall?

On the contrary...i do understand the difference...i just disagree with your understanding of it. me

Blah blah... in contrary to you I understand very well where .NET is broken by implementation, and even where it's broken by design.

Oh, I understand very well. Seems like you don't understand the difference between a VM and a sandbox.

I guess you're just believing in Microsoft's funny claims about .NET security. I'm rather realistic.

hint: verification of pointer semantics on 'unsafe' code hint: cross-reference object modification

Blah, blah back to you as you're no authority on anything other than being some kind of a blabber mouth *clown*.

Duane :(

One can say "I don't want to discuss it, because I like being ignorant" way smoother. You brought up using .NET for security, now defend against the known vulnerabilities!

Go stand in the corner Sebastian and shut the hell up if that's possible for you.

Duane :(

Please explain. What is broken in the design of .NET? What is broken in the implementation of .NET?

Please explain.

Please explain.

Yours, VB.

What are those vulnerabilities?

Yours, VB.

Yes indeed, lets see what *blabber mouth* comes up with, with his blabber mouth wisdom.

Duane :)

Yes, lets see what blabber mouth comes up with in developing secure .NET Enterprise solutions. Lets see his opinions on where the security problems may be with a .NET Enterprise solution.

Duane :)

| Verification is not an exact process.[...] | Legal IL can be unsafe, that is, IL can access memory directly and | perform pointer arithmetic which can potentially allow code to perform | an action that could corrupt memory.

Another possibility is that unsafe codes slips by the verifier.

| The JIT compiler does not use data

And that's the problem: It doesn't check where the modification to memory locations is done exactly, because he simply doesn't know. That's pointer semantics!

You're some kind of an expert here. Have you done any of it yourself?

I doubt it.

Duane :(

Yes.

Why? The description would allow even a medium programmer to create an exploit on bypassing the verifier.

Yes i have one suggestion...ask in another newsgroup or forum ,as you will get little or no comprehensible advice here(apart from one or two)to help you.Your thread will deteriorate into nonsensical arguments ,usually instigated by those that have no tolerance for anything other than windows firewall,and you will end up none the wiser.Although its quite obvious to the unconditioned reader what you want and require such as a simple and respctful answer to your question ,your post will be disected and analyzed by the "experts",with quips and one liners to the extent that youd wish you never asked in the first place..Such is what comp.security.firewalls has become. me

Amen!

Notan

I agree there is one lunatic *clown* running around in this NG a

*blabber mouth* Securities and Firewall expert's expert blabber mouth preaching with his *big blabber mouth* about his beloved XP FW.

You don't talk about something *blabber mouth expert* loves and is consider to be the gosiple in *Blabber Mouth Gosiple the Expert's* eyes, as that is not acceptable.

Duane

The *Blabber Mouth Expert Security and Firewall King*, Little Caesar, Little Napoleon with is d*ck in his hand, Sebastian, needs to be locked up in an asylum under the cell with the key thrown away.

There should be no way that *clown* could escape.

You're right. There should only be one person beaten and then lynched on the highest limb on a tree.

Duane :)

Beside that, ZoneAlarm doesn't offer any protection either.

You are entitled to your opinion but ZoneAlarm does a great job as a firewall.

Do you mean "Reflection", say, discovering a type while runtime?

If so, I doubt that, while I cannot see, why this has to do with security here.

Or do you mean something else?

Yours, VB.

From there:

| This means that if an assembly passes verification there is little | chance that the code contains unsafe code, however, this conservative | algorithm may not verify code that does not contain unsafe code.

This matches what I know about code verification and the halting problem.

I hope, that .NET security does not rely on this, does it?

Yours, VB.